lets face it its all David Cameron's fault, just a yes /no with no thought for how the question and what the majority should be to carry through leaving. then buggered of leaving a right mess.
Second vote ? Why not .?
- Thread starter bladeplayer
- Start date
Kellfire
Blackballed
No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU.
Why do people struggle to understand this? :\
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
The EU were given the opportunity to support British Mining, my industry with the same subsidies that are/ were given to other countries in the EU. The industry would of eventually closed but the blow was softened. The help never came. Lies from thre main camp, The EU will help industry and trade. I am proof they will pick and choose who they help.
If only Delc was still here to give us his opinion on the matter
A fundamental part of the democratic process is "agenda control." This is when the decision enacting process is handed back to a government. For it to be a true democracy the representative politician must enact the result of a vote. This doesn't take away the opportunity of a second/third/fourth vote, but for it to be a true democracy the loop must be closed between asking the citizens what they want, first vote, and then enacting what they voted for.
Why do you struggle to understand this?
drdel
Tour Rookie
I struggle with the question a second vote would ask.
If it was YES or NO to EU membership that would totally undermine democracy.
But what other form of words are there that distills the issue to one question. You can't have multiple questions because, as any mathematician will soon tell you, when there are millions of voters the differences will be very narrow and so any result could just be 'random' errors so potentially dogged by insufficient margin.
If it was YES or NO to EU membership that would totally undermine democracy.
But what other form of words are there that distills the issue to one question. You can't have multiple questions because, as any mathematician will soon tell you, when there are millions of voters the differences will be very narrow and so any result could just be 'random' errors so potentially dogged by insufficient margin.
How many other votes would you allow and how often would you allow them? This is such a seismic issue that for the stability of the country we can not keep having it. We had a vote, we don't need another to double check or triple check. It ends up being like Mrs Doyle asking Ted if he wants a cup of tea, "are you sure, are you sure, go on, go on, have one"
He'd probably tell us the first vote is null and void because it took place under the auspices of British Summer Time, not GMT, hence a percentage of votes were cast after the polls should have closed.
chrisd
Major Champion
I trust that you're just joking
Foxholer
Blackballed
Oh Dear! Try re-reading the article!
Earlier on in the article is the following....
"Both Denmark and Irelandheld second referendums on EU treaties within 18 months of the first ballot. There is a widespread perception that these second votes were held at the behest of the EU and that these small states were bullied into doing so.
This fundamentally misrepresents the political dynamics involved. In all cases governments, with the support of their parliaments, engaged in a sophisticated political exercise of managing the cross-cutting dynamics of domestic and EU-level politics. The exercise of national political authority was to the fore."
If you read on, you should note that the article actually confirms my post about the reasons for the original 'No' vote and the changes made to the original Lisbon Treaty.
So the article actually backs up what i posted earlier - and have posted a couple of times before too! Though I'd challenge the connection between the requirement for a 2nd Irish referendum an the wish for a 2nd Brexit one, simply by those who wish to obtain a different result!
Cowen's statement was from a very strong 'negotiating' position! Without a 'Yes' result from a 2nd referendum, the Lisbon Treaty would fail to be ratified!
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I can be but all you need to do is look back at the project fear lies that cameron, osborne and their mates put out. Surely you can recall that or do you have a brexit only filter on your memory.
I miss being call a "swivel eyed loon"
Kellfire
Blackballed
I understand your premise. I just disagree with it.
There is no legal reason why the first referendum had to be acted upon? True or false? True.
There is no legal reason why a second referendum could not be undertaken? True or false? True.
That's all that actually matters and it's clear that the voting public know a lot more about the process now than they did so any result would be a better indication of the public's view.
Kellfire
Blackballed
So in your mind a democracy is where a decision is made and adhered to forever?
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
What if a 2nd vote resulted in a vote to stay in the EU? Everyone had the opportunity to vote last time but many didn't, what about the democratic choice made by the 52% last time?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Your logic is like a man who puts a gun to his head and says to his wife "dont look so smug, your going to get it next"
Kellfire
Blackballed
Then we'd almost certain remain because it's what the leading politicians want.
Kellfire
Blackballed
It really isn't. You're still really struggling to understand something incredibly simple.
Forget your own personal wants from this process. Forget the propaganda on both sides. Think of the black and white of it.
If the public want Brexit, they'll vote for it again.
If they now don't, they won't.
The will of the people (only now with more knowledge) would be revealed by a second referendum. This may demonstrate a change of opinion. This wouldn't be a circumvention of democracy, it would be allowing the public to change their mind.
No matter what the result of a potential second referendum, the government wouldn't have to reverse the Brexit process as it's NOT legally binding.
Its not my premise. And its not my problem that you don't understand the definition of democracy as written by far more intelligent people than you or i.
As for the rest of your post, you're spot on. But if you want true democracy you are wrong to say a second vote has to be had before enacting the result of the first vote. And that's where you make a choice about a citizen led democracy.
And I look at your last sentence a little quizzically. Do the public know more than they did? There's been lots of opinions and projections but there was before the first vote too. Have some Remainers changed their minds and well as some Leavers changed theirs? I know of two young Remainers who have said they will vote Leave if there's a second vote. Both because they feel the call for a second vote is an affront to democracy. One of them has also stated that she doesn't like the way the EU have behaved.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I guess if the public still want to leave the EU a second vote would 100% confirm that , people know a little more about the process , they know that we could leave with no deal etc etc. They could sort out a deal and then go to the public and say “this is what deal we have agreed with the EU “ - “ do you still want to leave ?â€
If the desire to leave is that strong then the vote will be academic but if it’s what I think that people are still very much unsure then it would be another close vote
Let’s be honest though - if we did leave and struggled do we think we wouldn’t be welcomed back
If the desire to leave is that strong then the vote will be academic but if it’s what I think that people are still very much unsure then it would be another close vote
Let’s be honest though - if we did leave and struggled do we think we wouldn’t be welcomed back
